Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Abd

Urolagnia
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urolagnia&diff=prev&oldid=458366445, October 31, added an image of a woman urinating. The caption: A classic example of [[Voyeurism]] as well as [[Exhibitionism]] while peeing]]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urolagnia&diff=next&oldid=458366445 with the comment: (→Some common variations of urolagnia: the image used was not a depiction of urine used in a sexual act or voyeurism - it was just a woman urinating.. removed)

However, 11 days later, another IP (probably the same user) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urolagnia&diff=460725155&oldid=458999148 with (Undid revision 458999148 by 000peter (talk) Picture use justified because it is voyeurism).

Looks like 000peter didn't notice. Maybe he has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI on his watchlist. Is "ANI" the plural of "ANUS"? Might as well be, eh? Be that as it may, a simple, uncomplicated image of a urinating woman still stands as a "classic example" of Voyeurism and Exhibitionism.

The mind boggles. Why is this worth any attention? Because it demonstrates the total insanity of imagining that one can have "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit" without establishing an efficient structure to filter information fairly and neutrally. Such structures can be designed, but that, as well, takes "an efficient structure to filter information -- including argument -- fairly and neutrally." And such structures will be opposed, by those who benefit from the existing chaos. Mostly, they don't understand that the chaos will eventually burn them out. There are only a few, maybe very, very few, who actually desire the chaos, positively benefiting from it, long-term. Like those who are paid to maintain some position on Wikipedia.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

What's with the word "classic"? What makes it "classic"? Is it a widely-used and familiar image? The image title "Wiki-pee01.jpg" doesn't suggest so, and there are only three Tineye results. Someone should add "{{Fact}}" after "classic" for the lulz (as opposed to simply removing the word "classic").

Posted by: carbuncle

Never fear - Silver Seren has stepped in to remove the word classic (and ignore all the uncited additions that were made between the original insertion and now). It's probably just me, but I strongly associate voyeurism with surreptitious observation (and not with simply watching someone posing for a photograph). It is my understanding that it is observing something that was not intended to be observed is where the thrill comes from. Observing things that are likely to be observed or intended to be observed is generally just known as "seeing", isn't it?

Posted by: Abd

Right.

That photograph doesn't illustrate voyeurism, exhibitionism, nor urolagnia, these are supplied by the fantasy of the reader or editor. It's just a photo of a woman peeing. She's pulling her panties or bikini bottom aside, which is simply normal. The three paraphilias or whatever they are (I'm not sure how abnormal or unusual some kinds of voyeurism or exhibitionism are) involve sexual arousal or intention. Nothing in the photo indicates this.

If this has now attracted the attention of other editors, I'll affirm, again, that this is really really stupid. Sorry, Siver Seren. Wikipedia is a floating invitation to do something stupid. On the other hand, removing "classic" was a tiny improvement. Maybe you should get a tiny barnstar. Consider the period at the end of this sentence to be one.

The whole article is mess.